Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 22 No. 10
• Publication year: 2018

CASE NOTES

[Page 25]

Supreme Court

Environmental

Flores v. Board of Land and Natural Resources, No. SGAP-17-0000059, August 8, 2018, (Nakayama, J.). In May 2014, Appellee-Appellee/Gross-Appellant University of Hawaii (the University) requested that Appellee-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) consent to a sublease that the University intended to enter into with TMT International Observatory LLC (TIO) for the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) on the Mauna Kea Science Reserve (Sublease). BLNR subsequently addressed the University's request for its consent to the Sublease at two separate public meetings. At both meetings, Appellant-Appellee E. Kalani Flores (Flores) orally requested that BLNR hold a contested case hearing prior to making a decision on the matter. Following the second meeting, Flores filed a written petition for a contested case hearing. BLNR denied Flores's request and consented to the Sublease. Flores appealed BLNR's denial of his request for a contested case hearing to the Environmental Court of the Third Circuit (environmental court). The environmental court ruled that based upon this court's opinion in Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Board of Land and Natural Resources, 136 Hawaii 376, 363 P.3d 224 (2015), BLNR infringed upon Flores's constitutional rights by rejecting his request for a contested case hearing. On secondary appeal, BLNR and the University argued that the environmental court erred in ruling that Flores was entitled to a contested case hearing because: (1) BLNR's consent to the Sublease did not fall within the purview of Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 91, as BLNR was acting as a landlord engaged in the custodial management of public property; and (2) a contested case hearing was not required by law because it was not mandated by statute, administrative rule, or due process. The Hawaii Supreme Court rejected BLNR's and the University's argument that Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 91 does not apply in this case. However, it agreed with BLNR and the University that BLNR was not required to hold a contested case hearing prior to consenting to the Sublease because such a hearing was not required by statute, administrative rule, or due process under the circumstances of this case. Consequently, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the environmental court erred in ruling that BLNR violated Flores's constitutional rights when it denied his request for a contested case hearing in this case.

Appeal...